Posted on 02/26/2025 11:44:05 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON—Amid a MAGA-led backlash to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider an issue that has split judges around the country: What do white people and other members of a majority group have to prove to win a claim for reverse discrimination?
Marlean Ames claims the Ohio state agency where she works denied her a promotion and then demoted her because she is heterosexual, instead giving both her old job and the one she had sought to gay people. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw out Ames’s lawsuit, finding that she failed to show the “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was hostile to straight people—a threshold step that wouldn’t have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.
The Supreme Court is reviewing her appeal.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination because of an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” protection the Supreme Court in 2020 extended to LGBT workers. But Americans have long disputed whether attaining equal opportunity requires absolute neutrality today, or should take into account centuries of state-imposed and socially accepted discrimination that minority groups have faced.
Typically, liberals have contended that minority groups deserve extra consideration in light of that legacy, while conservatives, as Chief Justice John Roberts put it in a 2007 opinion, argue that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I’m starting to believe that the liberals are right. The SCOTUS is a commie POS.
Everyone is equal under the law — except the normal people. No one likes them.
IBM is in serous legal trouble.
Obviously, I'm a white guy, straight, and at the time religious.
Why call it “reverse” discrimination?
Call it what it is. “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names”.
And deservedly so.
Exactly.
Which seems like a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
(Apparently my colleague was discomforted, perhaps in no small part because she was a lesbian "married" to another woman.)
I am a college educated man who has been a journalist twice, has worked behind the scenes in the television industry, has taught school, and a number of other things. I'm very qualified for a lot of positions.
A little over two years ago I had to leave a great job working with others in the mental health field, because the Biden economy was making it so I couldn't afford that job anymore.
Since then it's been one paltry job after another that either I couldn't afford to live off of that, or I was let go because I "wasn't a good fit" (like my lasts job).
Three days from now I'm due to interview for another job. One that probably won't pay as well as I would like but Lord willing it will pay the rent and the bills.
I hate Biden and DEI and leftists in general. They have cost me dearly.
“ Which seems like a violation of the Equal Protection clause”
It doesn’t SEEM like it. Call it what it is.
It’s not reverse discrimination. It’s simply discrimination.
Agree
I read the transcript of the oral arguments.
My guess is that Miss Ames will win 9-0. Case will be sent back down to the District Court for trial.
The state will settle because a sure loss at trial would be far more expensive.
The state attorney making the state’s argument pretty much that the state had no case. He wasn’t going to embarrass himself by pretending the state had a case.
If you refuse to compete, then go live under a bridge. Or on the street in LA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.